Go to The Journal of Clinical Investigation
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • All ...
  • Videos
  • Collections
    • Resource and Technical Advances
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Reviews
    • Editorials
    • Perspectives
    • Top read articles
  • JCI This Month
    • Current issue
    • Past issues

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • In-Press Preview
  • Concise Communication
  • Editorials
  • Viewpoint
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
Protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection by a mucosal vaccine in rhesus macaques
Yongjun Sui, … , Lai-Xi Wang, Jay A. Berzofsky
Yongjun Sui, … , Lai-Xi Wang, Jay A. Berzofsky
Published April 28, 2021
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2021;6(10):e148494. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.148494.
View: Text | PDF
Research Article COVID-19 Vaccines

Protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection by a mucosal vaccine in rhesus macaques

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

Effective SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are urgently needed. Although most vaccine strategies have focused on systemic immunization, here we compared the protective efficacy of 2 adjuvanted subunit vaccines with spike protein S1: an intramuscularly primed/boosted vaccine and an intramuscularly primed/intranasally boosted mucosal vaccine in rhesus macaques. The intramuscular-alum–only vaccine induced robust binding and neutralizing antibody and persistent cellular immunity systemically and mucosally, whereas intranasal boosting with nanoparticles, including IL-15 and TLR agonists, elicited weaker T cell and Ab responses but higher dimeric IgA and IFN-α. Nevertheless, following SARS-CoV-2 challenge, neither group showed detectable subgenomic RNA in upper or lower respiratory tracts versus naive controls, indicating full protection against viral replication. Although mucosal and systemic protective mechanisms may differ, results demonstrate both vaccines can protect against respiratory SARS-CoV-2 exposure. In summary, we have demonstrated that the mucosal vaccine was safe after multiple doses and cleared the input virus more efficiently in the nasal cavity and thus may act as a potent complementary reinforcing boost for conventional systemic vaccines to provide overall better protection.

Authors

Yongjun Sui, Jianping Li, Roushu Zhang, Sunaina Kiran Prabhu, Hanne Andersen, David Venzon, Anthony Cook, Renita Brown, Elyse Teow, Jason Velasco, Jack Greenhouse, Tammy Putman-Taylor, Tracey-Ann Campbell, Laurent Pessaint, Ian N. Moore, Laurel Lagenaur, Jim Talton, Matthew W. Breed, Josh Kramer, Kevin W. Bock, Mahnaz Minai, Bianca M. Nagata, Mark G. Lewis, Lai-Xi Wang, Jay A. Berzofsky

×

Figure 3

Spike-specific CD4+ T cell responses and trained immunity in PBMC and BAL samples of the vaccinated animals.

Options: View larger image (or click on image) Download as PowerPoint
Spike-specific CD4+ T cell responses and trained immunity in PBMC and BA...
Intracellular cytokine staining assays in responses to spike protein S1 were measured during the whole course of vaccination in PBMC (A) and BAL (B) samples. Spike-specific TNF-α+CD4+ T cell responses of different groups in PBMC (C) and BAL (D) samples at week 2 after second vaccination and day 8 after last vaccination were compared. PBMC and BAL samples from prevaccinated naive animals (n = 12) were included (C and D) to serve as negative control to show the baseline. The kinetics of CD14–CD16+ (monocyte or possibly NK) subsets were measured in the BAL samples of the vaccinated animals after 18 hours of PMA+ ionomycin stimulation (E). IFN-α was measured in the supernatant of BAL samples after 18 hours of Poly I:C plus S1 stimulation (F). Medians are shown. Serum from naive animals (n = 4) was included (F) to serve as negative control to show the baseline. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare the differences between groups (D–F). Dashed lines are the threshold for positive responses. n = 6 for groups 1 and 2.

Copyright © 2022 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN 2379-3708

Sign up for email alerts